<HTML>Robert G. Bauval wrote:
>
> Dear John,
An improvement:-) "Dear John Wall" has become "Dear John":-)
> Again, you misunderstand the problem. The match between
> Orion's belt and the Giza pyramids in 10,500 BC is visually
> and esthetically perfect, or at least as perfect as one would
> expect it to be without the aid of sophisticated optical
> instruments and spherical trigonometrical calculation. The
> 'perfection' that you and other critics are seeking is
> theoretical, and goes outside the ethos and context of the
> Pyramid Age, the related ideologies and, more importantly,
> the motives behind such a correlation.
I won't repeat what I said on the other thread......
> In any case, I do not say that the date of 10,500 BC was
> arrived through the calculations of angles of the belt stars.
> This date is arrived by finding the 'nadir' or lowest point
> of Orion's belt at culmination in the current precessional
> cycle. Read The Orion Mystery (chapter 10) again, and more
> carefully this time:
I've read it.
> "The Table (see TOM p. 192 hb. ed.) shows the changes in
> declination and altitude at the meridian transit of Al Nitak
> over 13,000 years. Looking from Heliopolis, the lowest point
> marking the start date of that cycle is 10,400 BC, when Al
> Nitak has a declination of -48 degrees 53 minutes and it was
> 11 degrees 08 minutes over the southern horizon at its
> meridian transit... what now emerges from this visual picture
> of the southern sky is this: The pattern of Orion's belt seen
> on the 'west' of the Milky way matches, with uncanny
> precision, the pattern and alignment of the three Giza
> pyramids.."
>
> THE ORION MYSTERY, p. 192, hardback ed.
As I said, the <i><b>pattern</b></i> matches with <i><b>uncanny precision</b></i> at 10500BC. This was, of course, when - in the same book - you were saying:
"Not only did the layout of the pyramids match the stars with uncanny precision but the intensity of the stars, shown by their apparent size, corresponded with the Giza group..."
It's clear and umabiguous - you said that the layout was "precise" at Giza and that the pattern "matched" at 10500BC. You're linking Giza with the astronomy.
But because you've been challenged on this, you're now saying that Giza is "symbolic" and that it's only the astronomical date for the lowest point of Orion's Belt (I'd still like to know how they knew where in the precessional cycle they were.......) that matters......
> So understand my argument (if you can remove you blinkers)
I well understand your argument and also how your position has shifted like the sands of the Sahara and how you're desperately trying to distance yourself from claims of "accuracy" and "precision" that you clearly hadn't properly checked when you made them.
> and do stop attributing to me an argument that I did not
> make, as well as the so-called 'Cayce-inspired' accusations.
It's difficult to "attribute" anything else and considering that professional astronomers - with far more knowledge and experience than I - such as Dr Tony Fairall have made the same "attribution" I am confident that I am not in any sort of a minority......
As there's nothing that you've demonstrated wrt Giza that "gives" 10500BC - particularly as you're now seeking to divorce the astronomy of Orion's Belt from a "symbolic" Giza - Edgar Cayce is all that's left..... The lowest point of Orion's Belt is c. 10500BC but as you say the angles, etc at Giza have nothing to do with that there's no case (Cayce ?) to be made.....
> You've lost this argument and you know it --or you ought to
> know it. Otherwise you are simply too blinkered to understand
> it. Period.
Strange, then why aren't I waving a white flag ?
John</HTML>
